They want his “policies” to fail

Courtesy of CNN’s Political Ticker, Fred Thompson–politician turned actor turned failed politician–has added his grizzled voice to the now well-organized choir of Republicans who want Obama’s “policies” to fail (not him, as Jabba the Limbaugh chortled earlier this year).

I have three points related to this view held by Thompson, Jindal, and all the others.

1. Socialism. While Freddie avoided the “s” word in his proclamation, others have been making liberal use of it. I am ALL in favor of a little socialism in this nation, especially as we are bearing witness to an economic phenomenon that is anything but an aberration of capitalism. But, raising the tax three percent on gazillionaires and investing in children and the future of the economy is not socialism. If you think it is–I mean really think it is–then you don’t read enough.

2. “The Road.” These Republican voices have been rationalizing their perspective by saying they don’t want to head down a road of a huge debt, high inflation, and a host of other things, that nobody wants. If you really think Obama wants those things, then you don’t read enough. (I will add Bill Moyers and others make a very historically-sound argument why many Conservatives do want those.) We know why they say this: because if these policies just worked, then Republicans would be saying they’d rather be wrong and not know it than know it. As long as they aren’t proven wrong, they can keep mobilizing people on their faulty ideas.

3. Old white men. I’m tired of caring about what old white guys want and don’t want. We’ve done that for two centuries already and it hasn’t been all that great for the rest of us. (And no, Jindal is not an exception.)

The question is meaningless. ‘Communism’ and ‘socialism’ are both words whose meaning in our national context signify ‘other than us.’ They do not refer to actual systems of government, of economics, or of ideologies informing either.

And that is my point. The legacy of the Cold War is a set of coded language that can inspire and mobilize. Republicans–rather than engage ideas head on–largely rely on their ability to move people based on these (and other) linguistic turns.

[To be sure, Democrats have their own, largely linked to the so-called Civil Rights Movement.]

But, to answer the question on my terms (defining the word as it is rather than as a totalitarian opposition to ‘democracy’, to ‘freedom’, to ‘us’), no, I would not want it to fail. If it were the equitable and just solution, I would sing of its success.

Of course, all this is word trickery–your question and my answer. Because neither socialism or communism is the issue before us.